Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> John Hasler <jhas...@newsguy.com> writes: >> >> > RJack writes: >> >> Hyman will just ignore the Supreme Court decision as if it didn't >> >> exist and continue to quote the Federal Circuit's erroneous finding. >> > >> > If the Federal Circuit's finding is in conflict with Supreme Court >> > precedents why has it not been appealed thereto? >> >> This likely should be considered addressed comprehensively with the >> "scared them out of the water. LOL LOL LOL" babble. > > The appeal to CAFC was an interlocutory appeal (no final judgement) from > an order regarding PI. For the purposes of granting or not granting PI, > the CAFC error regarding confusion of conditions precedent v. scope > restrictions v. covenants was made moot by later Winter v. NRDC decision > of SCOTUS. Did you notice that judge White refused to grant the PI on > remand as well? Correcting an utterly obvious error by a district judge > from New Jersey sitting by designation on CAFC panel in a moot PI case > would be quite a waste of SCOTUS time, don't you think so silly dak?
Not interested in trying to figure out what you believe you are on this time. After a few dozen of rotten fish from the same barrel, there's not much incentive in dissecting another one. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
